Montgomery v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30757,30757 |
| Citation | 249 Ind. 98,229 N.E.2d 466 |
| Parties | Norman MONTGOMERY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Lewis Davis, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Davis S. Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction for rape. The charge was lodged by indictment and is under Burns' Indiana Statutes, § 10--4201, which reads, in part, as follows:
'Whoever has carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly against her will, or of a female child under the age of sixteen (16) years * * * is guilty of rape, and on conviction shall be imprisoned not less than two (2) years nor more than twenty-one (21) years * * *.'
The trial was by jury and appellant was sentenced to 2--21 years in the Indiana State Prison.
Appellant urges as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The motion for new trial contended:
1. The verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
2. The verdict of the jury was contrary to law.
The prosecutrix testified that she was fourteen years of age at the time of the alleged crime. She met the appellant in a cocktail lounge, where she and a girl friend had been for more than two hours. The appellant took the prosecuting witness and her companion to a hotel which adjoins the lounge, and obtained a room. The female companion of the prosecuting witness became ill and went to sleep. The prosecutrix then had sexual intercourse with the appellant.
The prosecuting witness admitted she had engaged in prostitution in Louisville, Kentucky, as well as in Indianapolis. Police officers testified when they arrested the appellant some three days after the night in question, that he admitted to the officer he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and also her female companion.
Appellant urges that the State failed to prove:
(a) The age of the prosecuting witness;
(b) That prosecuting witness had a proper understanding of the facts to which she testified; and
(c) That he actually had carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix.
The substance of appellant's contention appears to be that the prosecuting witness was an immoral person and was not, therefore, a credible witness.
All of the fact issues urged by the appellant go to the credibility of the prosecutrix. In Wedmore v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d 649, a conviction for rape was affirmed solely on the testimony of the prosecuting witness, this Court saying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geisleman v. State
...appellant's account. This the jury had a right to do." Wedmore v. State, (1957) 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d 649. Montgomery v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 98, 229 N.E.2d 466. " * * * in reviewing an allegation of insufficient evidence this Court does not weigh competing factual assertions nor resol......
-
Grimm v. State
...be had solely on the testimony of the prosecuting witness and victim. Woods v. State (1968), Ind., 235 N.E.2d 479; Montgomery v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 98, 229 N.E.2d 466; Wedmore v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 212, 143 N.E.2d 649; Abshire v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 474, 158 N.E. In reviewing the......
-
Buchanan v. State
...weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. As stated hereinabove, this is not our function. See, Montgomery v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 98, 229 N.E.2d 466. It is to be noted that a conviction for rape may be based solely upon the testimony of the prosecuting witness and vi......
-
Dombkowski v. State, 30695
...present a question for the determination of the trial jury. Ritter v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 426, 67 N.E.2d 530.' Montgomery v. State (1967), Ind., 229 N.E.2d 466. It is manifest that if the jury believed the witness-victim and were warranted in doing so, we may not reverse this case and us......